"Tertullian
is the church father who more than any other has been taken
to epitomise
the anti-intellectualism of the early Church."

Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus was born in Carthage to pagan parents,
but became a Christian at some point before AD 197. According to Jerome1
and Eusebius2 he trained
as a lawyer in Rome. Following his conversion he became a presbyter in
the church at Carthage, but dissociated himself from the Church after the
bishop
of Rome rejected the New Prophecy of the Montanist movement. However, ...neither
Eusebius nor Jerome is in this matter a reliable witness, and what can be known
about Tertullians life must be gathered from his own writings; unfortunately,
their highly rhetorical character makes inference insecure.3) Very different conclusions may be reached from the
fragmentary evidence available to us.4

Reasons for His Condemnation

Throughout church history Tertullian has received condemnation for two main
reasons: his association with the Montanist movement5 and
because of his supposed anti-intellectualism. However, the vast majority of
scholars now agree that the Montanists were doctrinally orthodox,6 and
so there are no grounds for rejecting Tertullians contribution to
theology on the grounds of his association with them. Roger Forster & Paul
Marston, for example, refer to Minucius Felix (late
2nd/3rd century), as Tertullians more orthodox contemporary.7 However,
it should be noted that in Minucius Felixs work Octavius Christianity
is treated from the standpoint of philosophy, Scripture is not cited, nor are
major biblical teachings much discussed.8 It
is therefore difficult to accept Forster & Marstons view on
the basis of arguments from silence. There has been a long history of
debate whether Tertullian
used Octavius as
a source for his Apology or vice versa. Current opinion favours the
priority of the Apology.9 This is not the first time that Tertullians orthodoxy
has been attacked in order to undermine his credibility as a witness to the
beliefs and practises of the church of his day. William Wall used the same
ploy in the 1840s to support his case for infant baptism. Wall wrote
that Tertullian ...fell into the heresy of the Montanists, who blasphemously
held that one Montanus was that Paraclete or Comforter which our Saviour promised
to send: and that better and fuller discoveries of Gods will were
made to him than to the Apostles, who prophesied only in part.10 To which Paul K. Jewett responds: But the noble
Africans reputation as a Christian and theologian scarcely needs
defence against such beggarly invective.11

Tertullian is the church father who more than any other has been taken to
epitomise the anti-intellectualism of the early Church. Tertullian wrote:

For philosophy
is the material of the worlds wisdom,
the rash interpreter of the nature and dispensation of God. Indeed heresies
are themselves instigated by philosophy What indeed has Athens
to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church?
What have
heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch
of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought
in simplicity
of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and
dialectic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing
Christ Jesus,
no inquisition after receiving the gospel! When we believe, we desire
no further belief. For this is our first article of faith, that there
is nothing
which we ought to believe besides.12

Tertullians
Rhetoric

Three facts that
lie behind Tertullians rhetoric that are seldom
considered:

Greek philosophy
was an amalgam of rival world-views, based on
premises that are very different from the biblical revelation.13
Their failure to establish any means of accountability to allow the resolution
of disputes was already appreciated by Diodorus (c.90-21 BC), Galen (c.130-200
AD) and Claudius Ptolemy (2nd cent. AD) (and other leading thinkers of the
2nd century.14

Tertullian believed
that heresies are themselves instigated by
philosophy,15 Plato and Aristotle being
responsible for Valentinian Gnosticism.16 David
Lindberg argues that what he therefore opposed was not philosophy generally, but heresy
or the philosophy that gave rise to it.17

Tertullian himself
made use of philosophical (particularly Stoic) ideas in his writings.18 He agreed with Plato
on the matter of the immortality of the soul.19
He even claimed (as Philo and Justin Martyr had before him) that the
philosophers borrowed from
the Jewish Scriptures.20 Like all writers, he
assumed that he was able to write theology without incorporating his
own presuppositions.21

The statement cited above must be viewed in the context of his other works:

Elsewhere Tertullian does not always speak in such robust terms of an unbridgeable
chasm separating Athens and Jerusalem. He was as well educated as anyone of
his time: a competent lawyer, able to publish his writings in both Latin and
Greek with equal facility, acquainted with the current arguments of the Platonic,
Stoic and Aristotelian schools and also possessing some knowledge of medicine.22

I believe it because
it is absurd

Finally, Tertullians argument I believe it because it is absurd23
has been shown to be a misquotation, but more importantly it is an example
of a standard Aristotelian argumentative form. Put simply what Tertullian is
actually saying is that

...the more improbable
an event, the less likely is anyone to believe, without compelling
evidence, that it has occurred;
therefore, the very improbability of an alleged event, such as Christs
resurrection, is evidence in its favour. Thus far from seeking the
abolition of reason, Tertullian must be seen as appropriating Aristotelian
rational
techniques and putting them to apologetic use.24

Indeed, in his Apology he demonstrated his familiarity with at least
thirty literary authorities, which he probably had read first hand, rather
than by referring to a handbook of quotations.25

Tertullians method
of exegesis varied depending on the purpose of each of his works. When
writing against the Gnostic Marcion (who rejected
the Old
Testament and all use of allegory) Tertullian defended its use, noting
how even Paul had used allegory in his letters.26 While he admitted that the use of allegory was sometimes
legitimate he made it clear that he himself preferred the literal sense.27 His principle for identifying the presence of allegory
was that it was present if the literal sense resulted in nonsense; it is not
present when the literal meaning makes sense.28 In
this he did not differ significantly from Origens principle.29 In his other works Tertullians use of allegory
is restrained.30 Following other writers (such as Justin
and Irenaeus) Tertullian used typology extensively to demonstrate the unity
of the Testaments,31 but the figures that he found in
the Old Testament were based upon historical persons, places and events, and
were used consistently.32 As OMalley points out: He
clearly does not feel able to allegorise generally, simply because Paul uses
the words in Gal. 4:24.33

Sider,
883: It is because of their opposition to the Montanists
that neither Eusebius of Caesarea nor Jerome are regarded as
reliable
witnesses concerning Tertullian. Schaff comments that Jerome ...admired
Tertullian for his powerful genius and vigorous style, though
he could not forgive him his Montanism... Philip Schaff, History
of the Christian Church, Vol. 3. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1989 reprint), 969.

Barnes, Tertullian,
42: Historical interpretations of the rise of Montanism
inevitably differ, according to the prejudices and preoccupations
of the exegete.
But the theological issue is clear. The orthodox dubbed the Montanists Cataphygians or the
Phrygian Heresy. Yet they had to confess that they were
orthodox in all matters of Christian doctrine. Only in the fourth
century
could polemical writers accuse the Montanists of purely theological
error, and then the accusation patently relied upon a perverse
and anachronistic interpretation of an utterance of Montanus
himself.

Christopher
B. Kaiser, Creation & The History of Science. (London:
Marshall Pickering, 1991), 4. Kaiser continues: The long-range
welfare of natural science depended on the development of an
ecumenical community of scholars dedicated to the pursuit of
truth. This ideal
was appreciated by the leading thinkers of antiquity, but the
needed substructure was not available the ecumenical foundation
of modern science was to be provided by the monastic movement
of the
Middle Ages, a movement based on the very discipline that was
advocated by Irenaeus and Tertullian. Such are the ironies of
history. See
further 34-51.

Stuart
G. Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church. (London,
SPCK, 1991), 69. For a full discussion of Tertullians use
of Stoic arguments see: Jean Daniélou, The Origins
Of Latin Christianity. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1980), 209-223.

Robert
E. Roberts, The Theology of Tertullian (London: Epworth
Press, 1924), 19: Tertullian made use of the allegorical
method of interpretation, but he does not emphasise the difference
between
the plain and the figurative sense of Scripture, and certainly
is no supporter of the idea that there are different meanings
of Scripture
for different classes of people after the manner of the Gnostic
and Alexandrian theologians. Whatever is plain narrative is such
for
all men, and where a figurative meaning is to be discovered it
is open to all.

Hanson,
274: But though Tertullian is ready to acknowledge as legitimate
the practice of allegorizing Scripture in the Church of his day,
and will occasionally have recourse to it himself, he often rejects
the practice and his writings leave a general impression that
he was suspicious of allegory.

Tertullian, Christian
and Pagan in the Roman Empire: The Witness of Tertullian. Selections
from the Fathers of the Church, Robert D. Sider, ed. Washington,
DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001. Pbk. ISBN: 0813210216.
pp.177.

DISCLAIMER:
Opinions expressed
in this site do not necessarily represent Phoenicia.org nor do they necessarily reflect those of the various authors, editors, and owner of this site. Consequently, parties mentioned or implied cannot be held liable or responsible for such opinions.